TW & Anor v Hampshire County Council
[2022] UKUT 305 (AAC)
AG v Brent Council
6 June 2024
[2024] UKUT 166 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A father appealed a decision about his son's special education plan. The judge agreed the original decision didn't explain well enough why the mother, not the father, got to choose the son's social activities. However, a new plan had been made, so the judge didn't change the old one, but suggested the new appeal consider the points raised.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerned sections B, F, C, G, D and H1 and H2 of a 9-year-old boy's (S) EHC plan.
- •Appellant (father) argued for inclusion in social care provision for S.
- •First-tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed the appeal, granting the mother sole discretion over social care activities.
- •Upper Tribunal (UT) granted permission to appeal on the grounds of inadequate reasoning by the FTT.
- •The EHC plan in question was potentially superseded by a newer plan at the time of the UT decision.
Legal Principles
Adequacy of reasons in tribunal decisions: Decisions must explain why a party won or lost, enabling review for legal errors.
Meek v City of Birmingham DC [1987] IRLR 250
Tribunals must consider the reasons as a whole, including implicit reasoning. Appellate courts should consider both explicit and implicit aspects of a decision.
R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Khan [1983] QB 790; UT (Sri Lanka) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 1095
When assessing inadequate reasons, the appellate court should review the judgment in the context of evidence and submissions to determine if the reasoning is apparent. If not, the court may order a rehearing or new trial.
English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2409
In EHC plan appeals, tribunals should give effect to Section 19 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (regarding consideration of views, wishes, and feelings).
BB v London Borough of Barnet [2019] UKUT 285 (AAC)
Sections D and H2 of an EHC plan respectively detail social care needs relating to special educational needs/disabilities and other reasonably required social care provision.
Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014, Children and Families Act 2014
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The FTT erred in law by inadequately explaining why it gave the mother sole discretion over S's social care activities, failing to address the father's arguments for involvement and not providing sufficient reasoning for its decision.
FTT decision not set aside.
Remitting the case would be academic due to a new EHC plan superseding the original one and the appeal regarding this new plan already ongoing. The UT decision should be brought to the attention of the tribunal reviewing the new appeal.